Do All Churches “Hide” History?

[Walden]

I see the Haun's Mill Massacre as a story that can promote faith--that people died for their beliefs/rights. There's nothing faith promoting in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, no tie into the mission of the church, and therefore no reason to be discussed in church meetings. Why do you think it should have been discussed?

I also never heard about the MMM until I started reading church history a couple of years ago. However, I don't know that I was taught any church history (at least not much) from after the pioneers to the manifesto.

Exactly, thank you for helping me make my point. Haun's Mill is a story that is reiterated because it can "promote faith--that people died for their beliefs/rights." The church downplayed MMM for years becasue it had no value to promote faith. The LDS church, IMO, teaches of Haun's Mill becasue it shows that people were willing to die for their faith......but MMM shows that they were also willing to murder for their faith as well.

Of course, if you only show one side of the coin, you will only elicit one type of emotion. In this case, the LDS church has chosen to elicit the "persecution" image, while ignoring the "predator" image as displayed by MMM. This fits very well into their overall message.

MMM is just an one example of this type of historical distortion that I speak of in which the LDS downplays or neglects some unbecoming nuggets of their history in order to present themselves in the best possible light.

[Mars]

Walden,

God's one, true, restored Church is a reference to the source of revelation and Priesthood, not wholesale better behavior.

That's like saying "I expected more from Judas." or "I can't be Christian, did you know what that Paul the 'Apostle' did? Paul's not even his real name, it was Saul. Let me tell you about a guy named Steven..." or the like.

I'm sorry your expectations weren't met.

[Jeff K.]

I guess that I just expected more from god's one, true restored church.

Is that supposed to make someone feel guilty? Or is it supposed to support your position? Or is it merely another one of those mini-anti-Mormon passive aggressive responses?

I suppose when your daughter decides to go on a mission, you will shake your head and say "I guess I expected more from my one true daughter."

[thesometimesaint]

Rivers:

So did Abraham, and any number of the Old Testament prophets. So what? Did the fact that they were polygamous make them any less prophets?

[Mars]

MMM is just an one example of this type of historical distortion that I speak of in which the LDS downplays or neglects some unbecoming nuggets of their history in order to present themselves in the best possible light.

There was no distortion.

Distortion is "Hey folks, I know it's Gospel Doctrine, and I know we typically focus on faith, repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end, but hey. This MMM thing? Well, here's the real scoop: <insert non-historical crap>."

The Church is plain old silent. The 'distortion' accusation is you reading into their motives behind the silence.

Here's my reading into it:

The purpose of Sunday attendance is to participate in the Sacrament, meet together and study together. I feel bad for folks who feel that they were lied to - really, I do - but the Church's job is not to go through all the muck, crap, and seedy understories regarding its leaders , important figures, and history. It's point is to teach essential doctrines for salvation and encourage its member to go forward with faith. We all have our suggestions of what could change, but why are we suggesting that? Would you be a member today if they didn't? You mentioned yourself you read the Book of Mormon numerous times between 12 and 20 with no answer, so what difference would teaching historical warts have made?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Of course, if you only show one side of the coin, you will only elicit one type of emotion. In this case [Haun's Mill], the LDS church has chosen to elicit the "persecution" image, while ignoring the "predator" image as displayed by MMM.

Or maybe it's because the whole purpose of instruction in the Church is to teach and encourage correct behavour. Do you really find it odd that the Church would wish to engender in its members a willingness to sacrifice but not a willigness to kill???

[Walden]

Walden,

God's one, true, restored Church is a reference to the source of revelation and Priesthood, not wholesale better behavior.

And considering the church's avoidance/downplaying of the multiple, different versions of that revelation, well, they didn't even get that one right.

[Mars]

Whoa, hey, the goalposts moved!

Apologies, dialog like that is unhelpful.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 12 May 2011 - 09:54 PM, said:

You presuppose they do, when most of the evidence shows otherwise.

What exactly am I "presupposing".....are you referring to my statement that "all institutions such as churches, governments, corporations, etc. hide their history to some extent....or maybe not hide it, but at least manipulate it to place themselves in the best possible light, through the use of half-truths, avoidance, etc."?

I would love to see your "evidence" that shows otherwise, if this is in fact what you are referring to. Do you suppose that the American history taught in classrooms across America went down exactly how it is written in the history textbooks, or do you think that maybe there are some dark parts of American history that are glossed over in these books? If you swallow whole the history of America as presented in government/tax payer supported classrooms, then I question your grasp of true American history.

I suggest you read "Rough Stone Rolling" it is hardly the description of Joseph Smith you seem to think the church white washes, and as I have mentioned already but you seemed to have coveniently overlooked... The Joseph Smith Papers... and others have also mentioned different artifacts that bolster my point and seem to undermine yours.

As to American History in textbooks. I can tell from your post you aren't a historian and have not studied American History closely, or American history textbooks. You would be surprised at how sharp the critque can be. Some would say it has swung too far in one direction. Those not informed on the issues will of course always putll out such old canards and brush off the dust and reuse the same phrase again and again, even though the issues have been addressed quite vigorously.

I suggest you do some reading and research before you blithely toss about statements you know little about in order to bolster your own credibility.

[Walden]

Or maybe it's because the whole purpose of instruction in the Church is to teach and encourage correct behavour. Do you really find it odd that the Church would wish to engender in its members a willingness to sacrifice but not a willigness to kill???

No, of course the church has an agenda, and I do believe part of that is to "teach and encourage correct behavour." I just believed, naively at one time, that it also had a obligation to be honest as well.

Look, I am not trying to chide the church for the way it goes about it's historical business. I am just trying to point out that the LDS church is just like every other organization that has a selective memory when it comes to presenting their history, a selective memory that promotes their good values and avoids/ignores their bad history.

My biggest disappointment was that I expected more from a faith that is directly led by god and is his true church on earth. What's the point if they act just like very other organization?

[Walden]

I suggest you read "Rough Stone Rolling" it is hardly the description of Joseph Smith you seem to think the church white washes, and as I have mentioned already but you seemed to have coveniently overlooked... The Joseph Smith Papers... and others have also mentioned different artifacts that bolster my point and seem to undermine yours.

As to American History in textbooks. I can tell from your post you aren't a historian and have not studied American History closely, or American history textbooks. You would be surprised at how sharp the critque can be. Some would say it has swung too far in one direction. Those not informed on the issues will of course always putll out such old canards and brush off the dust and reuse the same phrase again and again, even though the issues have been addressed quite vigorously.

I suggest you do some reading and research before you blithely toss about statements you know little about in order to bolster your own credibility.

Did you ever take an American history class in an American public school?

[Jeff K.]

I have a degree in history and I have indeed taught American history in public schools.

You apparently have neither taught nor studied it.

[Libs]

There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's the normal response, I should think. And you're in good company. The faithful, devout Latter-day Saints to whom plural marriage was first introduced overwhelmingly found the whole thing troubling, too. For many of them, though, it then became an opportunity to put prayer and personal revelation to the test. I find it striking that so very many of them went from being appalled to being at peace, often literally in a moment, as God answered their confused prayers on the subject. Like them, I've found that one of the most startling of spiritual experiences is to have God change my attitude for me, even when I've been convinced otherwise.

To share just one, this is Eliza Ann Whitney's personal account:

(I highly recommend the entire Ensign article, by the way.)

I appreciate that you understand, HT. I will read the article...thank you.

[Libs]

My friend... you shouldn't let it bother you.. really =D ... in the least till you meet Joseph yourself. It is hard to judge a person who is not with us right now, and it is best to not assume how he treated his wives until we can see him in person.

And you shouldn't be bothered by the youngness of the wives, imo. Jesus's parents had a ginormous age difference. And yet, look at the great miracle that came from it, from a Heavenly Father who cared for us. Age didn't make a difference. Nor will it in the eternities - after all, we will all age till we are 100 years old, right? And your spirit could be eons older than mine, so age perspectively you could be 1000s of years older than I am.

Thus, time is relative, and age isn't so much important as ideals are =D. That's what we will have to talk to Joseph about, about why he did things the way he did. It will come clear in the Lord with time, I hope.

Best Wishes,

TAO =)

Thanks, Tao. You make some good points about "spiritual age" and time being relative. But, my concern was that Joseph was a false prophet (as I believe Warren Jeffs is). Would we (could we) say the same thing about him? That the age of his wives doesn't really make a difference? I don't think so.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I could never be moved out of the Restoration Movement as my testimony is of Jesus Christ and the Book of Mormon, not history, and not of the life or all things ever spoken by Joseph Smith. Even if conclusive evidence of Joseph's polygamy were to come forward it would merely steer me towards the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) or the Church of Jesus Christ, but NEVER to denying my testimony of Jesus or the Book of Mormon. That would be foolishness.

[thesometimesaint]

Walden:

Tell me EVERYTHING you know. I have a minute. If you can't/won't do it you are being dishonest.

[Jeff K.]

That's nice that you were aware of it, and that it didn't bother you. I converted in 2001 and I wasn't aware. I didn't really "investigate" church history. I read the Book of Mormon and gained a testimony of it (I thought). I did spend a year studying the Book of Mormon and other scriptures...talking with missionaries and other members of the church, before I made the decision.

The thing is, I learned about Joseph's marriages to young girls around the time Warren Jeffs was in the news and pictures of him with (literally) little girls sitting on his lap and kissing him, etc. I am not claiming that Joseph Smith was like him..but, the thought did occur to me. The possibility was extremely unappealing, to say the least. So, it did bother me...it bothered me a lot.

I can see how the Warren Jeffs issue would definately color your view of polygamy. Contextually you might want to consider how different polygamy was in Utah versus marriage in the US. Utah was the second state (by a couple of months) to offer women the franchise. Indeed womean also had more in the way of property rights than the rest of the nation (back east, if you were a woman of means, upon marriage they would all fall under control of your husband. You could not divorce unless your husband allowed you to). One reason divorce tended to me prevalent in Utah was the acknowledgement that women can choose in marriage and divorce.

Now when I first knew of polygamy, I was not aware of the ancilliary information regarding structure or voting, or divorce. I did however have the spirit of a testimony and was guided with patience to learn and become a member. Later as I learned the additional information, I confirmed that the spirit guided me down the right path.

Sometimes we just have to wait for the answer.

[Walden]

I have a degree in history and I have indeed taught American history in public schools.

You apparently have neither taught nor studied it.

And you still agree that there is no agenda in what is being taught about American history in public schools?

[Jeff K.]

And you still agree that there is no agenda in what is being taught about American history in public schools?

That is a very silly question.

When textbooks are sold, they are reviewed. The review is done on several levels. First the state must review the textbooks to ensure that basic standards are being taught. Then the district reviews teh textbook along with the teachers who provide their comments. Only then do you have the beginnings of a school contract.

Now consider this. In California, the state instructional system is very liberal, I do not think anyone with an iota knowledge would deny that. From that consider that the district I have taught is is 85 to 90% hispanic. Now consider that the companies must provide balance or else the books will be protested and/or denied, not just by the district, but also by a very strong activist community. You also have professors in distinct areas bringing their ctitiques into the system.

So who has an agenda? And by agenda who has a personal preference or bias regarding information?

Well, the state legislators want to tout the progressives and the progressive period, with a longer emphasis on the depression and a shorter emphasis on wars. The hispanics want more emphasis on the development of the state of CA, and the west, and more information regarding Texas, the War between Mexico and the US, as well as early colonization and exploration of the Mississippi. The list goes on, people bringing in their preferences from a number of different areas. And in the middle, a company trying to sell a book.

From all of that critique, from all of that push and pull historically. Eveyone has an agenda. But the textbooks come out more or less within a mean, sometimes a bit on one side, sometimes a bit on the other.

Someone wholly ignorant of the process would scream agenda, agenda, agenda.

Well, you have an agenda too, why should we listen to you?

[Walden]

Walden:

Tell me EVERYTHING you know. I have a minute. If you can't/won't do it you are being dishonest.

Yes, that sounds like a very genuine offer.

I was in the LDS church for 24 years. Now if you have 24 years to discuss everything I know, well that's a diffrent story then your "minute". I attended church every Sunday. I attended seminary for 4 straight years (heck, my mother was the seminary teacher). I listened to possibly thousands of lessons over those years. I read the church-approved literature as well as some of the stuff not published by the church. As you can guess I heard a pretty fair amount about Joseph's vision (I've even stood and prayed in the grove where he purportedly had that vision), the manner in which he translated the scriptures with the Urim and Thummim, the strength of Joseph's wife Emma Smith (which I don't deny), the great suffering that the Saints endured (as a ggg-grandson of Parley P Pratt this suffering was often a special family topic as well), etc. etc. etc.

What I don't remember are any stories of multiple first vision accounts, Joseph's polygamy, Joseph's translation method using a hat, or the violence inflicted by the mormons on those who oppossed them.

In the end, my testimony of the church did not rest on historical inaccuracies. My lack of faith was due more to the inability to obtain a true testimony using Moroni's promise.

The bone I am picking is with those who deny that the church actively manipulates/filters/denies/ignores/overlooks/etc. certain portions of their more seedy history with the express intent of promoting a particular agenda.

My point is that we as individuals do this, our governments do this, our corporations do this, and our religions do this. I, personally, just expected more from god's true church....not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

[Jeff K.]

Kind of like saying someone has a bellybutton and of course Walden expected more than just a bellybutton from the Lord's true church.

[consiglieri]

Kind of like saying someone has a bellybutton and of course Walden expected more than just a bellybutton from the Lord's true church.

I don't even know what this means, Jeff.

But is it too much to expect openness and honesty from the church that proclaims to be God's one and only?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

You imply the church is dishonest?

Christ often spoke in parables. Is it too much to ask Him to be open and honest? Would you leave too?

[Walden]

So who has an agenda? And by agenda who has a personal preference or bias regarding information?

Well, you have an agenda too, why should we listen to you?

Yes, again, thank you for helping me make my point. Yes, everyone has an agenda....you, me, the government, corporations, religions, etc.

We go to great lengths sometimes to cover our "warts" and display our shiny, pretty selves.

My point is that the LDS church has an agenda. This agenda includes (but is not limited to) hiding their warts and displaying their shiny, pretty self. Thus, they are like everyone else, and therefore, participate in the art of deception, at least on some level (by either ignoring, downplaying, etc. the true weakenesses of that self, just as you and I and every other entity do). I just expect more from gods church, that's all.

That is the point I am trying to make.

PS - just a sidenote, but judging from your evaluation of the political climate surrounding textbooks and US history (which I am fairly aware of being married to a vice principal of a public school), I would assume that you and I have very different opinions on The People's History of the United States, which I found to be brilliant (though I ackowledge not entirely accurate....again, clouded by an agenda; imagine that).

[MosesStone1980]

The church should update their gospel manuals adding in bright red any points our critics feel are imperative to our history.